Rationed Rights

I know someone who, against my advice, recently got a concealed carry permit. His experience drives home why I believe it’s a mistake to beg bullies for permission to exercise your natural human rights.

The process is insulting and degrading. It is designed to treat you like a common criminal.

There was a “fingerprinting”– this of a person who has already been fingerprinted multiple times and undergone an extensive background check in order to get his current government “job”. That wasn’t good enough.

Then, there were drawn-out delays caused by a technical glitch wherein they wouldn’t accept that he had worked for the same place twice, but with a different job sandwiched in between. The “system” wouldn’t accept that answer. Not sure how a person’s job history is supposed to validate their right to carry a weapon anyway.

I’m supposing my long-term “self-employment” would disqualify me in their eyes, or at least give them reasons to be suspicious and put me through the wringer.

Then there was the delay after eventual approval while waiting for his rights to come by mail so that he could start exercising them. In all, I believe the process took a month and a half or so. Rights delayed are rights denied… but so are rights licensed.

I understand, somewhat, the desire to “stay legal”, if you believe that will keep you safe from the molesters in blue (and their co-conspirators) you might encounter. But that safety is an illusion. They’ll murder you regardless of your permit, pat each other on the back for a job well done, go grab a beer, and get a paid vacation out of it.

Open This Content

Bullies, Outrageous Laws, Libertarian Unpopularity and Failures (29m) – Editor’s Break 081

Editor’s Break 081 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: bullying our children into standing up for themselves toward bullies; when laws become totally outrageous and we’re no longer willing to support them; why libertarianism is unpopular; how libertarianism fails and why that’s really a bad question to begin with; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 081 (29m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Open This Content

Standing Up for Liberty Isn’t Political

Liberty is the “political” sphere’s null set. Politics is the active (rather than passive) attempt to violate liberty.

For example: humans have always had the natural right to arm themselves. This wasn’t even debated; it’s just how it is, always has been, and always will be. Nothing can change it.

Then someone decided to use politics to stop people from arming themselves, and punish those who didn’t cooperate with this violation.

Some of those who resist being violated use politics in an attempt to fight back, but this is just playing the bullies’ game– by the rules the bullies set up and enforce. It might get you a temporary reprieve, but in the long run, it’s a losing strategy.

Standing up for your liberty, by living it, isn’t political. But trying to stop people from living their liberty is.

Anti-gun activists and anti-knife activists (or their supporters) are being political.

Gun rights (and knife rights) activists– especially those simply ignoring the “laws” and doing what they have a natural human right to do– aren’t.

You have no obligation to tolerate those trying to stop you from doing what you have a right to do. You have no obligation to play politics in self-defense. Why march or v*te for your rights? Just exercise them.

Open This Content

Scott Adams on Guns

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame wrote a post about the “gun debate” a few days ago. It’s worth a read, even if you won’t agree with his conclusion. Here’s the link to it, if you are interested.

Now I’ll point out where he’s wrong.

“The persuasion filter sees individuals with different risk profiles favoring policies they feel will keep them safer even if it makes someone else less safe.”

Maybe some people do that. Especially the anti-gun bigots. But I don’t. The only people truly less safe around guns are those intent on archating. And I don’t care about their safety, and I don’t believe you should, either. After all, how much do they care about anyone else’s safety?

“…no one involved in the gun debate, on either side, is engaged in honest, rational debate.”

Yes, one side is. You just want to spin it to be nice to the anti-gun bigots; to not make them feel bad.

“…you see people who are pursuing their own self-interest as they see it at the expense of other people.”

At the “expense” of who, exactly? Rapists, politicians, muggers, home invaders, etc.? Since when are you obligated to protect the feelings of those who want to molest you? It is in every decent person’s self-interest to encourage gun ownership for everyone. Even if I go crazy and try to kill an innocent person, and they shoot me in self-defense, I completely support their right to do so. Maybe knowing they are armed would help keep me sane, or scare me into not attacking them even if I go nuts.

“…gun ownership is a freedom granted in the Constitution”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And this is the foundation of just about ALL anti-gun bigotry.

Gun ownership (and the carrying of guns and all other weapons) is not a freedom granted by anything. It is a fundamental human right which predates government. It exists now, everywhere, whether the ruling gang of bullies respects the right or not. It will still exist long after government is forgotten in the mists of time. It would exist if the Constitution had never been written, and will exist if the Second Amendment is abolished. No “laws” can touch the right, although they can give bullies excuses to murder and cage those exercising the right.

“…the unspoken part of those preferences includes the knowledge that some number of innocent people, including children, will die because of current gun laws.”

Yes. Gun “laws” kill. The answer isn’t more anti-gun “laws”, resulting in more innocent deaths. It is more wrong to “do something” that results in innocent deaths, than to fail to do something that might trade some of those lives for others. In other words, it is more wrong to shoot an innocent person than it is to fail to jump into the path of the bullet to save the life.

“We humans can’t say aloud that we prefer our position on guns (either pro or con) even though we know that getting our way will mean certain death to innocent people.”

Innocent people will die even if guns had never been invented. More innocents will die if you manage to take guns away from all the good people, leaving them only in the hands of criminals, police, and the military (and all the other government goons who would be exempt from the prohibition). Why make it even harder and less likely that those innocents will have the proper effective tools available for self-defense when they are attacked? That’s just evil.

“…we live in a political system that allows (and maybe encourages) people to vote for their self-interest, as they see it, even if the outcome would lead to the death of other citizens.”

And this is why rights and liberty are never legitimately up for a v*te. It is wrong to decide against human rights for other people, no matter how many people agree with you.

“…for some types of political decisions, people will die no matter which direction you go. And that means people will vote in a way that makes it less likely they will be the ones dying and more likely it will be some other class of people doing the dying.”

I will gladly help people of other “classes” learn to safely handle and use a gun. Again, this is why “politics” is a horrible thing to allow to meddle with a society. To me, there are really only two “classes” of people: those who archate and those who don’t. Or maybe it would be better expressed as those who make a habit of archating and those who avoid it. I want all innocent people to prevail against their attackers every time, no matter what their bank account, skin color, ethnicity, place of birth, religion, sex, or orientation. It’s not a difficult thing to explain, but apparently it is difficult to accept.

Honest Pro-gun argument: “I realize the right to own guns will result in the death of thousands of innocent people. But owning a gun lowers the risk for my family, in my opinion, because of my specific situation, and so I favor gun rights.” or… Honest Anti-gun argument: “I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”

Well, I question the use of the word “honest”. Why are the words “thousands” and “innocent” omitted from the anti-gun argument? And how would the anti-gun bigot’s family be safer? They might feel safer, if they are oblivious. But if they don’t archate, the good guys won’t be shooting them, and not having a gun won’t protect them from the bad guys who will still have guns or another way to impose their will on unarmed victims. The anti-gun argument is based on wishful thinking. A belief in magic.

I want to do what I can to prevent the deaths of innocent people. Making sure it is easier for them to own and carry a gun is part of that. Making sure they don’t feel so hopeless they want to kill themselves is an even bigger part. Getting rid of anti-gun “laws” doesn’t result in innocent deaths–existence results in innocent deaths.

“I’m pro-gun, with a preference for a national no-buy list.”

Who gets to create this list? The bullies of government who want to find any reason they can manufacture to say as many people as possible are prohibited from having a gun? No thanks.

“Private gun owners stand no chance against a professional military”

Tell that to a growing list of private gun owners who have humiliated professional militaries all over the planet. But it sounds right if you don’t actually think it through.

I understand Adams wants to look balanced on the issue. But there is no balance to the question of slavery verse liberty. The appearance of balance is a deception.

Open This Content

Anti-Gun Laws Good for Criminals

How much do you respect self-destructive people?

Do you honor those who engage in self-harm such as “cutting?” Do you celebrate those who burn up their mind and body by abusing drugs and alcohol? Do you respect those who commit suicide as soon as life doesn’t go their way?

Then why praise teenagers (or anyone else) who protest for more anti-gun laws? Just because they are “doing something” with conviction? If that’s all it takes, young ISIS recruits deserve your respect, too.

I value education, so I encourage kids to walk out of school for any reason. However, if these young activists believe their walkout is a protest for “safety,” they are tragically mistaken. When the teachers and administration sponsor the “walkout,” it’s not a walkout, it’s a field trip.

What makes you believe these students have the wisdom to run your life, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary?

Anti-gun laws make criminals safer. “Gun free zones” are gun free only until some evil loser decides to go on a killing spree and chooses a target where he knows he’ll be free to kill. When that happens there are suddenly too few guns; the only guns present being in the wrong hands. This is mandated by law. It makes the killer’s cruel task easier and deadlier, and doesn’t boost the safety of the kids or teachers.

There is a term for people like the anti-gun students: useful idiots. They are very useful to political bullies who prefer unarmed subjects to armed peers. An armed person isn’t as easy to control. They may be able to resist if pushed.

This is why governments don’t like guns they don’t control, and always try to turn the right into a privilege — even while giving lip service to gun rights.

If they pretend a right is subject to their laws, limits, and licenses, they can change the way you think about your natural rights. They can change the way you think about the people who want to run your life. These are the people orchestrating the student protests, putting words in the kids’ mouths; pulling all the strings.

The young anti-liberty activists believe they are on the right side. Time will tell whether they are on the winning side, but their side isn’t the right side. Truth and ethics are against them.

Eventually, they’ll either realize their mistake, double-down due to cognitive dissonance, or they’ll go into politics where truth and ethics are rarely beneficial, anyway.

Open This Content

The Little Engine That Could, But Chose Not To

There once was a Little Engine.

It wasn’t the biggest or the strongest engine, but it was a good little engine. It loved being useful and it loved helping when it could. This didn’t pay well, and the Little Engine often ran short of fuel.

The Little Engine was told about a job for which a train was needed. A job that paid well. A job that was said to be helpful; hauling government troops and their equipment over a steep mountain to their next destination.

It wouldn’t be an easy job but would push the Little Engine to its limits.

All its friends encouraged the Little Engine to do what they knew it was capable of. They knew it could get that job hauling troops over the mountain, even though the mountain was very steep, and usually only much more powerful engines did the job. They knew the Little Engine had heart, and a reserve of strength. The engine’s friends kept saying “We know you can do it! It’s a respectable job; supporting the troops! It pays well! You can do it! You can do it!

But the little engine knew that the troops were armed government employees, used to impose the opinions of political bullies on others, by breaking things and killing people in places they have no right to be. The little engine knew that the troops were paid by a type of theft called “taxation”, and that the pay for hauling the troops over the mountain would be obtained the same way.

The Little Engine had ethics and principles.

The Little Engine knew it could, but knew it shouldn’t.

The Little Engine refused the job and was shut down by the federal government for being a suspected terrorist sympathizer.

The End.

Paraphrased from Jurrasic Park‘s Dr. Ian Malcolm: “Humans were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Open This Content